General comments

I do not think the distinction between the two elements is confusing given their names and definitions. What IS confusing are the examples given in RDA 9.15, which do not match the definition of field of activity given in RDA 9.15.1.1: "Field of activity of the person is a field of endeavour, area of expertise, etc., in which a person is engaged or was engaged." "Anglo-Norman poet" or "Stamp collector" are not a "field of endeavour" or an "area of expertise." The field of endeavor/area of expertise of these persons are "poetry" and "stamp collecting". "Anglo-Norman poety" and "Stamp collector" are the person's occupations, not their field of activity. But the bad examples do not mean the elements are not distinct.

For example, the authority record for Rady, Martyn C. says, in 670, "Martyn Rady, senior lecturer in Central European history, School of Slavonic and Eastern Studies, University College, London".

Rady's field of activity is Central European history.
Rady's profession or occupation is lecturer, and/or historian and/or teacher (since there's no controlled vocabulary there are various possibilities).

These seem to me to be quite distinct categories. I do not think they should be merged.

I've heard an objection that terms like "Central European history" can't be used as a qualifier the access point to distinguish identical names. This is true. However, not all the elements are intended to be included in the access point. Affiliation (9.13) and language (9.14), for example, are not. I'd say that field of activity would be an element that would not be used in the access point; profession or occupation could.

The examples to 9.15 are incorrect given the definition of "field of activity." I do think recording both pieces of information (field of activity AND occupation) is helpful, and so would like to see the two elements remain. More appropriate, in my opinion, than merging the two, would be correcting the examples in 9.15 and deleting 9.19.1.7 to clarify that field of activity is not used in the access point.

Bob Maxwell, 17 August 2011.

I agree completely with Bob's comments. K. Randall, 8/24/11

Judging by the examples given, the current instructions in RDA seem to be making a distinction between paid employment (called “professions or occupations”; examples: notary, tax collector) and un- or under-paid activities (called “fields of activity”; examples: stamp collector, Star trek fan site webmaster), with more or less specific types of writers listed under both. I agree with the comments on the [rules] list that this is not a distinction worth making. If we went to use the definition of “fields of activity” given in RDA 9.15.1.1 as Bob Maxwell suggests and supply appropriate examples like Central European history and descriptive cataloging, that might be an element worth making available to those who want to use it. R.Rendall, 8/25/11